Morality without Hubris
James Rachels
A new perspective
From Plato to Kant, philosophers have thought humans were somehow special, different.
Rachels rejects this: “We know now that we exist by evolutionary accident, as one species among
many, on a small and insignificant world in one little corner of the cosmos.”
David Hume: “The life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that
of an oyster.”
Morality without Hubris (MWH)
Hubris: Greek word for pride, the kind that comes before the fall (Oedipus Rex, Antigone)
Why we act
Generally, we act for reasons, specifically to promote our interests. And our reasons for acting
can be consistent or inconsistent. For example: Racism places the interests of one’s own race ahead of
another, even though no general difference justifies it.
“It [i.e. racism] is an offense against morality because it is first an offense against
reason.”
This is reminiscent of Kant’s categorical imperative. Reason requires impartiality, that we treat everyone
alike. Because we are social creatures, then morality nicely works out, balancing three factors:
a. What reason requires, i.e. impartiality,
b. The requirements of social living (a good set of rules), and
c. Our natural inclination to care about others.
Responsibility
As rational beings, persons are responsible for their acts. They are judged good if they choose
well, and wicked if they choose badly. This has two consequences.
1. Freedom is a cherished human value. Someone denied the freedom to choose his/her
own actions can’t achieve moral worth.
1
2. How a person is treated depends on how he treats others. Those who treat others well
deserve to be treated well in return, and vice-versa.
A Satisfactory Moral Theory
This theory sees morality as based on facts about our nature and interests. It combines two
ideas:
1. Act so as to promote the interests of everyone alike, and
2. Treat people as they deserve to be treated, considering how they themselves choose to
behave.
The primary rule of morality
“We ought to act so as to promote impartially the interests of everyone alike, except
when individuals deserve particular responses asa a result of their own behavior.”
According to Rachels, this combines the best of Kant with the best of utilitarianism., but it
springs from the facts that “we are perishable beings with interests that may be promoted of frustrated
and that we are rational beings responsible for our conduct.”
The Moral Community
“We ought to give equal consideration to the interests of everyone who will be
affected by our conduct.”
Thus, nationalism, racism and egoism are wrong.
“Everyone is included in the community of moral concern.” So is it right to go to a movie, when
children are starving in Ethiopia? Rachels says ‘no’. In fact, we need to include future persons in the
moral community of our decision-making. (And so, argues Rachels, use of nuclear weapons can never
be allowed.) We must also consider the interests of animals.
“Impartiality requires the expansion of the moral community—not only across space
and time but across the boundaries of species as well.”
2
Justice and fairness
Questions of justice arise whenever one person is treated differently than another. In general
everyone should get equal treatment. But this begs the question, “What justifies unequal treatment?”
For example, why promote the hard working employee?
 Utilitarianism: Because everybody benefits.
 MWH: because that person earned it by working harder.
“MHW holds that a person’s voluntary actions can justify departures from the basic
policy of ‘equal treatment’, but nothing else can.”
And this poses a problem. How about rewarding talent? What if the hard-worker is passed
over, because the other has special talent? Is it just to reward that person for being “born lucky”?
This relates directly to the question of affirmative action in college admissions and hiring.
Affirmative Action
The point is to neutralize an advantage that white students enjoy. The white student is not
being penalized. He’s just not being allowed to profit from decades of discrimination. According to
Rachels, affirmative action attempts to compensate for the fact that in America white people are ‘born
lucky’.
But Keep in Mind…
MWH is simply Rachels’ “best guess” as to what a satisfactory moral theory might be.
“I say ‘guess’ not to indicate any lack of confidence; in my opinion, MWH is as
satisfactory moral theory.”
But the human race is still young. We have much to learn.
So, where are we?
Is morality a matter of
1. The happy life? ~ Aristotle
2. Obeying divine commands ~ Moses
3. Doing reason’s duty? ~ Kant
3
4. Maximizing pleasure for everyone? ~ Mill
How do we know?
What Ethics Is Not
How do we know right from wrong?
a) At our mother’s knee
b) From religious leaders
c) From social custom and tradition
You don’t need books or professors to know it’s wrong to rob banks, abuse children, or kill
convenience store cashiers.And if you don’t know these, then ethics courses won’t help.
What Ethics Is
Morality is traditional. But new questions arise in real life.
a) Lying to police is wrong. But the Gestapo is hunting Jews to kill them.
b) What about cloning human embryos?
c) What counts as fair pay for a worker in a global economy?
d) Is all discrimination wrong? If “all men are equal”, must I treat everyone the same?
Ethics is the systematic way to think through these questions.
Ethics also considers…
… what we think human beings really are
a) Creatures of God?
b) Citizens of the well-ordered state?
c) Autonomous rational agents?
d) Sophisticated animals, seeking comfort and pleasure?
Or some combination of these?
4